[Chambers] The North Pacific v New Francois

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Prydania has filed a request for indictment charging New Francois with conspiracy to commit treason. The request also includes request for approval of a ban.

For reference, conspiracy to commit treason would be:

• Planning, attempting, or helping to:
  • Take arms; or,
  • Provide material support to a group or region;
• In either case, for the purpose of either undermining or overthrowing the lawful government.

My sense from the indictment is that it relies on the “planning” part of Conspiracy and it seems to me that the posts exhibits do show some plan to take over the region. The overall sense of the posts, in particular the reference to “raiding” and to the need for secrecy (though plainly undermined by the posts being on an RMB), seems to me to be of a plan to take arms to overthrow the lawful government. While I think it is arguable that the posts do not demonstrate a sufficient plan, at the moment I would be prepared to draw an inference in favour of the prosecution that the posts are evidence of a plan that goes further than what is actually posted.

I don’t think attempting comes into the indictment as currently framed. I also don’t think there is evidence to show that New Francois can be said to have been helping someone else or, indeed, providing support to some other group, it appears to be their own plan, in essence.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

We have submissions on sentencing, which are below:

Spoiler

Your Honor, in entering this recommendation to the court we are conscious that my client has entered a guilty plea on the understanding of a plea bargain with the prosecution and understands that the actions that they performed were wrong.

New Francois has pleaded guilty to one charge of Conspiracy to Commit Treason. The punishment described in the penal code is as follows:

and


With the relevant laws in mind, the Prosecution and the Defense have agreed on a Joint Sentencing Recommendation as follows:

Circumstances of the crime
The circumstances of the crime, as laid out in the indictment, was not contested by the defendant in their guilty plea.


Mitigating factors:
Guilty plea: The defendant has also entered a plea of guilty, accepting the guilt and responsibility for their actions rather than attempting to waste the Court’s time by prolonging the trial. However, it should be noted that the original plea was Not Guilty and was changed on advice of the Defence Counsel.

Criminal history: New Francois has not been previously convicted of any crime in The North Pacific.

Aggravating factors:
Ban from citizenship: The Vice Delegate has rejected a citizenship application by New Francois made after the indictment, and the rejection was upheld by the Regional Assembly. This demonstrates that citizens of The North Pacific believe New Francois to be a threat to the security of the region and that New Francois should not be granted the rights associated with being a citizen.

Lack of remorse: New Francois, despite having stated multiple times that they had never planned to perpetrate a coup, has never apologized or expressed remorse for their actions. Instead, they had tried to argue, outside of this Court, that their actions do not count as planning. In doing so, New Francois has shown a lack of remorse for the crime they have committed.

Comparison to past cases
Although there has not been any recent case of a nation convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, there have been several convictions in the past year for Treason, which can be used as reference to this case.

In TNP v. Slatos, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, was similarly a new member of the region with a lack of knowledge on the region’s laws, and their crimes, although fitting the definition of Treason, did not ultimately result in any harm to the region. Like in this case, the defendant also pleaded guilty (although at an earlier point in the trial than New Francois) and was not completely remorseful. Slatos was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with 180 days ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Slatos.

In TNP v. Ikea Rike, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, had the intention of perpetrating a coup of the legitimate government but ultimately did little harm, similar to New Francois. However, unlike New Francois, the defendant entered the region with malicious intent, an aggravating factor on their behalf, though their expression of remorse was a mitigating factor that New Francois does not have. Ikea Rike was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with a one year ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Ikea Rike.

General comments
The Defense believes the extent of the crime committed was minor, as the planning to possibly perpetrate a coup was in fact in very early stages. Seeing as conspiracy is punished as a lesser punishment then the original crime, thus sparing my client from the highest punishment, a ban from the region. As well as seeing the mitigating factors in the case The Defense submits the following Final Recommendation for this case.

Final Recommendation
In consideration of the above, the Prosecution and Defense jointly recommends a sentence of 120 days’ ban from citizenship for the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, in the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois.

Your Honour,

The Prosecution and the Defence Counsel have agreed to submit a joint sentencing recommendation to the Court, consequent to the plea of guilty entered by the defendant. As the Prosecution, we present the sentencing recommendation as follows:

New Francois has pleaded guilty to one charge of Conspiracy to Commit Treason. The punishment prescribed in the penal code is as follows:

and


With the relevant laws in mind, the Prosecution and the Defence have agreed on a Joint Sentencing Recommendation as follows:

Circumstances of the crime
The circumstances of the crime, as laid out in the indictment, was not contested by the defendant in their guilty plea.


Mitigating factors:
Guilty plea: The defendant has also entered a plea of guilty, accepting the guilt and responsibility for their actions rather than attempting to waste the Court’s time by prolonging the trial. However, it should be noted that the original plea was Not Guilty and was changed on advice of the Defence Counsel.

Criminal history: New Francois has not been previously convicted of any crime in The North Pacific.

Aggravating factors:
Ban from citizenship: The Vice Delegate has rejected a citizenship application by New Francois made after the indictment, and the rejection was upheld by the Regional Assembly. This demonstrates that citizens of The North Pacific believe New Francois to be a threat to the security of the region and that New Francois should not be granted the rights associated with being a citizen.

Lack of remorse: New Francois, despite having stated multiple times that they had never planned to perpetrate a coup, has never apologised or expressed remorse for their actions. Instead, they had tried to argue, outside of this Court, that their actions do not count as planning. In doing so, New Francois has shown a lack of remorse for the crime they have committed.

Comparison to past cases
Although there has not been any recent case of a nation convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, there have been several convictions in the past year for Treason, which can be used as reference to this case.

In TNP v. Slatos, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, was similarly a new member of the region with a lack of knowledge on the region’s laws, and their crimes, although fitting the definition of Treason, did not ultimately result in any harm to the region. Like in this case, the defendant also pleaded guilty (although at an earlier point in the trial than New Francois) and was not completely remorseful. Slatos was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with 180 days ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Slatos.

In TNP v. Ikea Rike, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, had the intention of perpetrating a coup of the legitimate government but ultimately did little harm, similar to New Francois. However, unlike New Francois, the defendant entered the region with malicious intent, an aggravating factor on their behalf, though their expression of remorse was a mitigating factor that New Francois does not have. Ikea Rike was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with a one year ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Ikea Rike.

Prosecution’s comments
The Prosecution believes the extent of the crime committed was minor, as the planning to possibly perpetrate a coup was in fact in very early stages. However, there are aggravating factors in the crime, to an extent where it likely outweighs the mitigating factors. In light of this, a just sentence should be lighter than past sentences imposed for similar cases of Treason and spare the defendant from the highest punishment, a ban from the region, but should be sufficiently lengthy to reflect the aggravating factors.

Final Recommendation
In consideration of the above, the Prosecution and Defence jointly recommends a sentence of 120 days’ ban from citizenship for the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, in the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois.

I think that, overall, the assessment the parties make in the recommendation is about right. In terms of the harm that resulted from the crime (or even that could have resulted, had the Defendant tried to carry the plan out), this is obviously well below the Treason cases referred to, which were themselves low harm. Culpability seems lower than Ikea Rike, where there was a long running and far more involved plot, but broadly comparable with Slatos.

Further, the law requires Conspiracy to receive a lesser punishment than the completed crime. While that must be in reference to the Defendant’s crime being complete, it seems to me that their sentence would, at most, have been comparable to that in Slatos, so as Conspiracy should be lesser than that.

Though the Court in Ikea Rike said that Treason would require a ban or non-trivial length, I do not think that follows for Conspiracy to commit Treason and I think the parties are right that it is the obvious way to render a lesser sentence.

I think that, in the scheme of things, I would be inclined to treat the guilty plea as effectively being entered as early as possible, the main reason for delay in proceedings was due to the time to appoint the Prosecutor and the question of a nolo contendere plea, once those matters were dealt with the guilty plea was prompt. New Francois has no previous conviction. I am not sure I agree with the parties on aggravating factors, it seems to me that lack of remorse is really an absence of a mitigating factor rather than being aggravating (as the Court said in Whole India) and, while I think we can take into account risk to the region, I am not sure we can have regard to the decision of the Vice Delegate and the Assembly per se.

If I were assessing this without the recommendations, I might be minded to say the sentence should be in the order of a 90 day bar from citizenship, following by a similar length bar from voting and holding office. However, I think that a longer citizenship bar without a voting/holding office bar, as recommended by the parties, could suffice for the justice of the case, though if there are strong views from either of you in favour of a bar on holding office for some time after I think I could agree to that.

 

[Vivanco]

I also would like to point out my disagreeance with the aggravating factors, mostly on the factor of the ban from citizenship. I believe that the legislative branch's decision not to grant the defendant's citizenship back is not of the court's interest when putting it to perspective as an aggravating factor. I would have considered it as a comment for the situation, but under no circunstance, an aggravator.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I also would like to point out my disagreeance with the aggravating factors, mostly on the factor of the ban from citizenship. I believe that the legislative branch's decision not to grant the defendant's citizenship back is not of the court's interest when putting it to perspective as an aggravating factor. I would have considered it as a comment for the situation, but under no circunstance, an aggravator.

What is your sense as to the nature/length of punishment (ie, 120 day citizenship ban)?

For comparison: Slatos received 90 day regional ban, 90 day citizenship ban, 180 day voting/office ban (consecutive, so punishment lasted for 360 days total); Ikea Rike received 90 day regional ban, 90 day citizenship ban, 1 year office ban (consecutive, so punishment lasted for a year and a half).

 

[Vivanco]

I would firstly say that 90 day regional bans are the rule in both the punishments for Slatos and Ikea Rike, and the doubt will be for citizenship bans + voting/office bans. Both of them had 90 days citizenship ban, and since the region wasn't put as much of a risk as for example it could have gotten with Ikea Rike's, I would say that, as a maximum, 90 days and as minimum, 60 days.

On voting/office bans, I would say, for justice's sake and for them to think about the actions taken, 60 day voting-office ban.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I am not sure I follow, are you of the view that there should be a regional ban? If so, I disagree quite strongly. The circumstances of this case are less serious than the comparators, which both related to a completed crime. We are bound to render a lesser sentence than if the crime had been complete and, even if this crime had been completed, it would have been less serious. I don’t see any justification for a regional ban (which is not mandatory, unlike with Treason proper)

I agree that the citizenship ban pitched is perhaps more than I would be inclined to give initially, but if the parties have effectively agreed to bargain a longer citizenship ban without a bar on voting or holding office, I don’t know that I disagree with that. If there is to be a punishment beyond the citizenship ban, I would be minded to say that it should be limited to a bar on holding office, as a public protection measure.

 

[Vivanco]

I forgot to consider the finished status of the crimes, which you are correct in that stance. But ultimately, I agree with the final idea, of having a small bar of holding office.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I think you misunderstand me. I am fine with the sentence that the parties propose: 120 citizenship ban only.

While it is perhaps more lenient than I would be inclined to at first, I do not think that it is unduly lenient when I consider that I would probably have a shorter citizenship ban.

If you (and/or @Mall) want a bar on holding office, I think that I could agree, but my own sense (having regard to the parties' proposal) is not to impose such a bar.

 

[Vivanco]

After giving it more thought, I agree on not imposing such bar.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Apologies for the delay in drawing this up, below is a draft sentencing order for this case. I have only put myself and @Vivanco in the header, because, unless @Mall returns very soon indeed, I think that he will vacate office, meaning a THO will need to be appointed.

Spoiler

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Vivanco ​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

Spoiler: Section 1.1: Treason

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

Spoiler: Section 1.8: Conspiracy

24. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Spoiler: Chapter 2: Penal Code

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
[...]
8. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Spoiler

Your Honour,

The Prosecution and the Defence Counsel have agreed to submit a joint sentencing recommendation to the Court, consequent to the plea of guilty entered by the defendant. As the Prosecution, we present the sentencing recommendation as follows:

New Francois has pleaded guilty to one charge of Conspiracy to Commit Treason. The punishment prescribed in the penal code is as follows:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

and

8. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.

With the relevant laws in mind, the Prosecution and the Defence have agreed on a Joint Sentencing Recommendation as follows:

Circumstances of the crime
The circumstances of the crime, as laid out in the indictment, was not contested by the defendant in their guilty plea.

Specifics of Crime(s): New Francois laid out a plan to start a "revolution" and seize control of TNP on the Regional Message Board of the region First World Order.

Summary of Events: New Francois, using the puppet account New Francois of First Word Order, began to plan an attempted coup of TNP on First World Order's Regional Message Board. He explains he wishes to start a "revolution" in TNP, indicates he desires a regional conflict, says he plans on "raiding" TNP to take control of it and "change basically everything about the region," claims that "TNP Officials" can't know about this plan because they will "shut it down," and says he could do this easier as either Delegate or Vice Delegate of TNP.

Mitigating factors:
Guilty plea: The defendant has also entered a plea of guilty, accepting the guilt and responsibility for their actions rather than attempting to waste the Court’s time by prolonging the trial. However, it should be noted that the original plea was Not Guilty and was changed on advice of the Defence Counsel.

Criminal history: New Francois has not been previously convicted of any crime in The North Pacific.

Aggravating factors:
Ban from citizenship: The Vice Delegate has rejected a citizenship application by New Francois made after the indictment, and the rejection was upheld by the Regional Assembly. This demonstrates that citizens of The North Pacific believe New Francois to be a threat to the security of the region and that New Francois should not be granted the rights associated with being a citizen.

Lack of remorse: New Francois, despite having stated multiple times that they had never planned to perpetrate a coup, has never apologised or expressed remorse for their actions. Instead, they had tried to argue, outside of this Court, that their actions do not count as planning. In doing so, New Francois has shown a lack of remorse for the crime they have committed.

Comparison to past cases
Although there has not been any recent case of a nation convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, there have been several convictions in the past year for Treason, which can be used as reference to this case.

In TNP v. Slatos, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, was similarly a new member of the region with a lack of knowledge on the region’s laws, and their crimes, although fitting the definition of Treason, did not ultimately result in any harm to the region. Like in this case, the defendant also pleaded guilty (although at an earlier point in the trial than New Francois) and was not completely remorseful. Slatos was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with 180 days ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Slatos.

In TNP v. Ikea Rike, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, had the intention of perpetrating a coup of the legitimate government but ultimately did little harm, similar to New Francois. However, unlike New Francois, the defendant entered the region with malicious intent, an aggravating factor on their behalf, though their expression of remorse was a mitigating factor that New Francois does not have. Ikea Rike was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with a one year ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Ikea Rike.

Prosecution’s comments
The Prosecution believes the extent of the crime committed was minor, as the planning to possibly perpetrate a coup was in fact in very early stages. However, there are aggravating factors in the crime, to an extent where it likely outweighs the mitigating factors. In light of this, a just sentence should be lighter than past sentences imposed for similar cases of Treason and spare the defendant from the highest punishment, a ban from the region, but should be sufficiently lengthy to reflect the aggravating factors.

Final Recommendation
In consideration of the above, the Prosecution and Defence jointly recommends a sentence of 120 days’ ban from citizenship for the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, in the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois.

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Spoiler

Your Honor, in entering this recommendation to the court we are conscious that my client has entered a guilty plea on the understanding of a plea bargain with the prosecution and understands that the actions that they performed were wrong.

New Francois has pleaded guilty to one charge of Conspiracy to Commit Treason. The punishment described in the penal code is as follows:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

and

8. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.

With the relevant laws in mind, the Prosecution and the Defense have agreed on a Joint Sentencing Recommendation as follows:

Circumstances of the crime
The circumstances of the crime, as laid out in the indictment, was not contested by the defendant in their guilty plea.

Specifics of Crime(s): New Francois laid out a plan to start a "revolution" and seize control of TNP on the Regional Message Board of the region First World Order.

Summary of Events: New Francois, using the puppet account New Francois of First Word Order, began to plan an attempted coup of TNP on First World Order's Regional Message Board. He explains he wishes to start a "revolution" in TNP, indicates he desires a regional conflict, says he plans on "raiding" TNP to take control of it and "change basically everything about the region," claims that "TNP Officials" can't know about this plan because they will "shut it down," and says he could do this easier as either Delegate or Vice Delegate of TNP.

Mitigating factors:
Guilty plea: The defendant has also entered a plea of guilty, accepting the guilt and responsibility for their actions rather than attempting to waste the Court’s time by prolonging the trial. However, it should be noted that the original plea was Not Guilty and was changed on advice of the Defence Counsel.

Criminal history: New Francois has not been previously convicted of any crime in The North Pacific.

Aggravating factors:
Ban from citizenship: The Vice Delegate has rejected a citizenship application by New Francois made after the indictment, and the rejection was upheld by the Regional Assembly. This demonstrates that citizens of The North Pacific believe New Francois to be a threat to the security of the region and that New Francois should not be granted the rights associated with being a citizen.

Lack of remorse: New Francois, despite having stated multiple times that they had never planned to perpetrate a coup, has never apologized or expressed remorse for their actions. Instead, they had tried to argue, outside of this Court, that their actions do not count as planning. In doing so, New Francois has shown a lack of remorse for the crime they have committed.

Comparison to past cases
Although there has not been any recent case of a nation convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, there have been several convictions in the past year for Treason, which can be used as reference to this case.

In TNP v. Slatos, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, was similarly a new member of the region with a lack of knowledge on the region’s laws, and their crimes, although fitting the definition of Treason, did not ultimately result in any harm to the region. Like in this case, the defendant also pleaded guilty (although at an earlier point in the trial than New Francois) and was not completely remorseful. Slatos was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with 180 days ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Slatos.

In TNP v. Ikea Rike, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, had the intention of perpetrating a coup of the legitimate government but ultimately did little harm, similar to New Francois. However, unlike New Francois, the defendant entered the region with malicious intent, an aggravating factor on their behalf, though their expression of remorse was a mitigating factor that New Francois does not have. Ikea Rike was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with a one year ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Ikea Rike.

General comments
The Defense believes the extent of the crime committed was minor, as the planning to possibly perpetrate a coup was in fact in very early stages. Seeing as conspiracy is punished as a lesser punishment then the original crime, thus sparing my client from the highest punishment, a ban from the region. As well as seeing the mitigating factors in the case The Defense submits the following Final Recommendation for this case.

Final Recommendation
In consideration of the above, the Prosecution and Defense jointly recommends a sentence of 120 days’ ban from citizenship for the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, in the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois.

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Slatos:

Spoiler

After careful consideration the Court under guidance of Chapter 2, Clauses 1 & 2 sees fit that the Defendant, Slatos, be sentenced with:

• Ejection and Banning for a period of 90 days, ending on 26 May, 2020;
• Removal of Citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days after the banning period, ending on 24 August, 2020;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office for a period of 180 days after gaining citizenship, or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner;
• Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 180 days after gaining citizenship, or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner.

The Court has considered the recommendations of the prosecution and the defence and has concluded that the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike has the greatest similarity to this case. They relate to the same crime and in neither case did harm result.

However, unlike in that case, the Court has seen no evidence that this Defendant joined The North Pacific with the malicious intent to commit the crime nor any suggesting any longer term commission of the crime. The Defendant does benefit from an early guilty plea but there is no comparable demonstration of remorse and the Court is not satisfied that the Defendant is remorseful.

Balancing those points, the Court considers that a comparable sentence to the Treason sentencing in The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike is appropriate.

The Delegate, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Slatos.

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Ikea Rike:

Spoiler

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 2, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 2, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Treason by:

1. Ejection and ban from the region for a period of 90 days, with credit received for days already banned, ending 18 April 2020;
2. Removal of citizenship;
3. Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days from the date of sentencing, ending 13 May 2020; and,
4. Removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2022 there will be no suspension of this right.

.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 6, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 3, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Espionage by:

1. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there will be no suspension of this right.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 25, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 10, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Gross Misconduct by:

1. Removal from any office the Defendant may hold; and,
2. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and lasting for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would be subject to suspension of voting rights under the sentence for Espionage, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting until 29 August 2021, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right

The Defendant has committed a number of crimes: Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct. They did so as part of their role in an operation organised by the head of a foreign government which is widely and rightly reviled. They acted as an agent of that foreign government and sought to infiltrate The North Pacific with a view to assisting in the overthrow of the regional government, in so doing they provided reports on the activities of the region, all contrary to their sworn oath. Their actions required them to mislead their fellow citizens and to betray the goodwill extended to them.

It is fortunate, however, that their operation appears to have had minimal impact, their governmental involvement being limited to the Regional Assembly and positions in the executive staff as opposed to the attainment of government office, and to have lead to the disclosure of little, if any, significant information from the region. It is apparent from the evidence supporting the indictment that the Defendant quickly became more preoccupied with the region's roleplay than with their original mission. Had there been a greater impact, this would be a far more serious matter.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties and has considered both the case of The North Pacific v Madjack, to which it was referred, and The North Pacific v Ravania, to which it was not. The Court does not consider that Madjack is of assistance to the Court in this matter: the Defendant in that case was not sentenced for any of the crimes being considered here and the different underlying facts render the sentence for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct of little use. Ravania is more helpful, as it is a sentence for Espionage, but it is limited, due to the different purposes of the Espionage and to the fact that actual harm did result from the actions of the Defendant in Ravania.

The Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the length its sentence is around that proposed by the Defendant, though the Court does not consider that it would be right for the whole of the period to be punished by a ban. The Court is wholly unpersuaded that the justice of the case requires an indefinite ban as suggested by the prosecution, such a ban would be manifestly excessive when set against the actual impact of the Defendant's crime.

However, the Court must go on to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. A significant aggravating factor is the sheer length of time for which the Defendant was committing the crimes, this is of particular concern when considering the risk the Defendant could pose if allowed opportunity to attain office. In mitigation are a number of factors. As the Court has noted, the harm done by the crime appears minimal. The Defendant has no prior convictions and was new to the region, but that must be set against the fact that the Defendant's presence in the region arose only to commit these crimes. Of substantially greater credit to the Defendant is their entry of a prompt and complete guilty plea to each crime and recognition that their actions require punishment. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse and has renounced their previous association with the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators, these facts also do much to aid the Defendant.

Taking those factors together, the Court considers that the appropriate measure to take is not to substantially reduce the length of the punishment, but is to reduce its severity, such that the bulk of the period of punishment will not be served by a ban. However, the law requires the Court to pass a punishment including ejection and banning and the Court considers that it will, in all but the most unusual of circumstances, require a ban of a non-trivial length to meet the gravity inherent to the crime of Treason. In this case, the Court considers that the period of the ban should be 90 days. The Court considers it just and appropriate to also order the removal of the Defendant's citizenship and to remove their ability to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days.

As is stated above, the Court also considers that there must be recognition of the fact that the Defendant has shown a willingness to act to overthrow the region and to do so for a considerable period of time, such that steps must be taken to prevent undue risk to regional government. The Court considers, therefore, that should further be imposed removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant gains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 August 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 August 2022 there shall be no removal of the right.

The law also requires the Court to impose separate punishments in respect of Espionage and Gross Misconduct. Espionage must be punished by suspension of voting rights or speech, or both. Gross Misconduct must be punished by suspension of voting rights. Without rehearsing all of the factors discussed above, the Court considers that the appropriate punishment in respect of each of the crimes of Espionage and Gross Misconduct is a voting suspension of 90 days. The punishment for Espionage shall commence when the Defendant gains citizenship and shall last for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. The punishment for Gross Misconduct shall commence when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and shall last for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would be subject to suspension of voting rights under the sentence for Espionage, shall commence when they gain citizenship and last until 29 August 2021, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. Gross Misconduct must also be punishment by removal from office; while it appears to the Court that the Defendant holds no office, the Court does nonetheless, in order to ensure completeness, order the Defendant's removal from any office they may hold.

In relation to the punishment of Treason by banning, the Court considers that it must recognise that the Defendant has already spent a considerable period of time banned, with the approval of the Chief Justice, pending the conclusion of this trial. While that ban was not punitive in its purpose, its link to these proceedings is clear and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of fairness and proportionality in punishment, credit should generally be given for periods served banned pending trial. Consequently, credit is given for the time the Defendant has spent already banned, such that this part of the sentence will expire on 18 April 2020.

Overall, this will mean a sentence as follows:

• Ejection and Ban from the region for a period of 90 days, credit received for days banned, ending 18 April 2020;
• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold;
• Removal of citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days, ending 13 May 2020;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office, for a one year period after attaining citizenship or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner
• Suspension of the right to vote, a 180 day period after attaining citizenship or until 29 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner

The Delegate, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Ikea Rike.

The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clauses 2 and 24, and Chapter 2, clauses 1, 2 and 8, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, New Francois, be punished for Conspiracy to commit Treason by:

1. Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 120 days, ending [date].

The Defendant has pleaded Guilty to Conspiracy to commit Treason. They planned to undermine or overthrow the region's lawful government. They intended to to seek election as Delegate and then using the powers afforded to them by that office to do so. This plan was discussed on the Regional Message Board of another region, in those discussions the Defendant indicated a desire to raid The North Pacific and to provoke interregional conflict.

The Defendant's plan, it appears, was at a very early stage. While there was plainly discussion with other nations, there does not appear to be evidence to suggest other active participants in the plan. No harm has resulted from the Defendant's plan and, given its open discussion on a Regional Message Board, it seems unlikely the Defendant would have been capable of enacting the plan effectively.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties, including their references to the cases of The North Pacific v Slatos and The North Pacific v Ikea Rike. The Court agrees with the parties that those cases are of assistance and that the parties are right that the Court's duty to pass a strictly lesser sentence for Conspiracy than for an original crime does require a lesser sentence than either of those cases. Further, the harm and possibility of harm in this case were both lower and this Defendant's culpability seems far lesser than that of the Defendant in Ikea Rike, who had similarly been involved in a plot to overthrow the region, but had been involved in a more substantial plot for far longer.

The Court agrees that a case of Conspiracy to commit Treason, unlike that of Treason, does not require punishment by ejection and ban and that such a punishment in this case would not be appropriate. A sentence removing the Defendant's right to citizenship would be appropriate. Without considering the mitigating factors, a longer sentence than that proposed by the parties would be required. However, having regard to the Defendant's lack of prior criminal conviction and, particularly, their prompt guilty plea, the Court does consider that the length sought is adequate to do justice.

The factors identified as potentially being aggravating require any further adjustment. The question of the Defendant's current bar from citizenship is a security and political matter for the Vice Delegate and the Regional Assembly to which this Court cannot have regard. Lack of remorse, it appears to the Court, is more the absence of a mitigating factor than it is aggravation.

The Court considered whether a further element of punishment may be required, such as restricting the Defendant's right to stand and hold for office after gaining citizenship. While such an element could be an appropriate part of the sentence in this case, particularly having regard to the nature of the Defendant's plan, the Court does not think it is required. There is no need to disturb the bargain that the parties have reached, which, though arguably lenient, is not unduly so.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will be informed of this verdict and instructed to carry it out.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v New Francois.

 

[Vivanco]

. This plan was discussed on the Regional Message Board of another region, in those discussions the Defendant indicated a desire to raid The North Pacific and to provoke interregional conflict.

I would be careful with this in order to avoid a R4R or an appeal concerning the argumentation of court on evidence not processed / authenticated

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I would be careful with this in order to avoid a R4R or an appeal concerning the argumentation of court on evidence not processed / authenticated

I fail to see how the Court can be barred from concluding that the facts set out in the indictment are made out. The Defendant has entered a plea of Guilty to the indictment and must be taken to accept its facts. As the Court said in the review on the sentence issued by the Court in the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India:

“Zyvetskistaahn argues that by pleading guilty, a defendant is granting that the charge laid out against them is true as stated. He goes on to say that when a defendant is accused of committing fraud by lying about receiving threats from another nation, it is illogical for the Court, or any party, to accept that the defendant is guilty of lying and also that such threats are real. The conclusion he draws is that by pleading guilty in this case, Whole India is necessarily admitting that the images introduced as evidence are false.

The Court agrees with Zyvetskistaahn’s arguments, but not with his conclusion. The charge that the defendant pled guilty to ("intentionally deceiving the public into believing a foreign dignitary warned them to suspend their campaign for the upcoming election in January") made no reference to the method in which such deception was attempted, and the evidence introduced by the Deputy Attorney General, as referenced above, likewise did not include any allegedly doctored images.

The Court concludes that while it is reasonable to find the defendant guilty of the acts alleged in the opening indictment, it is not reasonable to extrapolate more information, or more criminality, from a guilty plea than is actually being alleged. If there is any confusion about what acts, specifically, the defendant is confessing to committing, the Court should ask the defendant to clarify.” (emphasis mine)

The charge in Whole India did not state in terms that the Defendant had doctored the image introduced and so the review held that the Court could not draw that conclusion from the plea.

Here, the indictment states:

“Specifics of Crime(s): New Francois laid out a plan to start a "revolution" and seize control of TNP on the Regional Message Board of the region First World Order.
Summary of Events: New Francois, using the puppet account New Francois of First Word Order, began to plan an attempted coup of TNP on First World Order's Regional Message Board. He explains he wishes to start a "revolution" in TNP, indicates he desires a regional conflict, says he plans on "raiding" TNP to take control of it and "change basically everything about the region," claims that "TNP Officials" can't know about this plan because they will "shut it down," and says he could do this easier as either Delegate or Vice Delegate of TNP.” (emphasis mine)

There can be no conclusion but that the Defendant has accepted that as fact. EDIT2: I also note that the recommendation submitted by the defence, under the heading “circumstances of the crime”, expressly states the defence does not contest the facts in the indictment and then includes the quote I have produced above.

EDIT: to add emphasis and pluralise “fact” in the opening sentence.

 

[Vivanco]

I accept it, then

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

@Oracle, thoughts?

 

[Oracle]

I concur.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Very good. I have added Oracle as joining in the order and, subject to typographic corrections from:

They intended to to seek election as Delegate and then using the powers afforded to them by that office to do so.

To:

They intended to seek election as Delegate and then use the powers afforded to them by that office to do so.

And from:

The factors identified as potentially being aggravating require any further adjustment.

To:

The factors identified as potentially being aggravating do not require any further adjustment.

And adding in a date for the end of the sentence, I will hand it down as drafted.

Spoiler: Version with typos corrected

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Vivanco and Oracle​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

Spoiler: Section 1.1: Treason

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

Spoiler: Section 1.8: Conspiracy

24. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Spoiler: Chapter 2: Penal Code

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
[...]
8. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Spoiler

Your Honour,

The Prosecution and the Defence Counsel have agreed to submit a joint sentencing recommendation to the Court, consequent to the plea of guilty entered by the defendant. As the Prosecution, we present the sentencing recommendation as follows:

New Francois has pleaded guilty to one charge of Conspiracy to Commit Treason. The punishment prescribed in the penal code is as follows:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

and

8. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.

With the relevant laws in mind, the Prosecution and the Defence have agreed on a Joint Sentencing Recommendation as follows:

Circumstances of the crime
The circumstances of the crime, as laid out in the indictment, was not contested by the defendant in their guilty plea.

Specifics of Crime(s): New Francois laid out a plan to start a "revolution" and seize control of TNP on the Regional Message Board of the region First World Order.

Summary of Events: New Francois, using the puppet account New Francois of First Word Order, began to plan an attempted coup of TNP on First World Order's Regional Message Board. He explains he wishes to start a "revolution" in TNP, indicates he desires a regional conflict, says he plans on "raiding" TNP to take control of it and "change basically everything about the region," claims that "TNP Officials" can't know about this plan because they will "shut it down," and says he could do this easier as either Delegate or Vice Delegate of TNP.

Mitigating factors:
Guilty plea: The defendant has also entered a plea of guilty, accepting the guilt and responsibility for their actions rather than attempting to waste the Court’s time by prolonging the trial. However, it should be noted that the original plea was Not Guilty and was changed on advice of the Defence Counsel.

Criminal history: New Francois has not been previously convicted of any crime in The North Pacific.

Aggravating factors:
Ban from citizenship: The Vice Delegate has rejected a citizenship application by New Francois made after the indictment, and the rejection was upheld by the Regional Assembly. This demonstrates that citizens of The North Pacific believe New Francois to be a threat to the security of the region and that New Francois should not be granted the rights associated with being a citizen.

Lack of remorse: New Francois, despite having stated multiple times that they had never planned to perpetrate a coup, has never apologised or expressed remorse for their actions. Instead, they had tried to argue, outside of this Court, that their actions do not count as planning. In doing so, New Francois has shown a lack of remorse for the crime they have committed.

Comparison to past cases
Although there has not been any recent case of a nation convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, there have been several convictions in the past year for Treason, which can be used as reference to this case.

In TNP v. Slatos, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, was similarly a new member of the region with a lack of knowledge on the region’s laws, and their crimes, although fitting the definition of Treason, did not ultimately result in any harm to the region. Like in this case, the defendant also pleaded guilty (although at an earlier point in the trial than New Francois) and was not completely remorseful. Slatos was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with 180 days ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Slatos.

In TNP v. Ikea Rike, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, had the intention of perpetrating a coup of the legitimate government but ultimately did little harm, similar to New Francois. However, unlike New Francois, the defendant entered the region with malicious intent, an aggravating factor on their behalf, though their expression of remorse was a mitigating factor that New Francois does not have. Ikea Rike was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with a one year ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Ikea Rike.

Prosecution’s comments
The Prosecution believes the extent of the crime committed was minor, as the planning to possibly perpetrate a coup was in fact in very early stages. However, there are aggravating factors in the crime, to an extent where it likely outweighs the mitigating factors. In light of this, a just sentence should be lighter than past sentences imposed for similar cases of Treason and spare the defendant from the highest punishment, a ban from the region, but should be sufficiently lengthy to reflect the aggravating factors.

Final Recommendation
In consideration of the above, the Prosecution and Defence jointly recommends a sentence of 120 days’ ban from citizenship for the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, in the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois.

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Spoiler

Your Honor, in entering this recommendation to the court we are conscious that my client has entered a guilty plea on the understanding of a plea bargain with the prosecution and understands that the actions that they performed were wrong.

New Francois has pleaded guilty to one charge of Conspiracy to Commit Treason. The punishment described in the penal code is as follows:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

and

8. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.

With the relevant laws in mind, the Prosecution and the Defense have agreed on a Joint Sentencing Recommendation as follows:

Circumstances of the crime
The circumstances of the crime, as laid out in the indictment, was not contested by the defendant in their guilty plea.

Specifics of Crime(s): New Francois laid out a plan to start a "revolution" and seize control of TNP on the Regional Message Board of the region First World Order.

Summary of Events: New Francois, using the puppet account New Francois of First Word Order, began to plan an attempted coup of TNP on First World Order's Regional Message Board. He explains he wishes to start a "revolution" in TNP, indicates he desires a regional conflict, says he plans on "raiding" TNP to take control of it and "change basically everything about the region," claims that "TNP Officials" can't know about this plan because they will "shut it down," and says he could do this easier as either Delegate or Vice Delegate of TNP.

Mitigating factors:
Guilty plea: The defendant has also entered a plea of guilty, accepting the guilt and responsibility for their actions rather than attempting to waste the Court’s time by prolonging the trial. However, it should be noted that the original plea was Not Guilty and was changed on advice of the Defence Counsel.

Criminal history: New Francois has not been previously convicted of any crime in The North Pacific.

Aggravating factors:
Ban from citizenship: The Vice Delegate has rejected a citizenship application by New Francois made after the indictment, and the rejection was upheld by the Regional Assembly. This demonstrates that citizens of The North Pacific believe New Francois to be a threat to the security of the region and that New Francois should not be granted the rights associated with being a citizen.

Lack of remorse: New Francois, despite having stated multiple times that they had never planned to perpetrate a coup, has never apologized or expressed remorse for their actions. Instead, they had tried to argue, outside of this Court, that their actions do not count as planning. In doing so, New Francois has shown a lack of remorse for the crime they have committed.

Comparison to past cases
Although there has not been any recent case of a nation convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, there have been several convictions in the past year for Treason, which can be used as reference to this case.

In TNP v. Slatos, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, was similarly a new member of the region with a lack of knowledge on the region’s laws, and their crimes, although fitting the definition of Treason, did not ultimately result in any harm to the region. Like in this case, the defendant also pleaded guilty (although at an earlier point in the trial than New Francois) and was not completely remorseful. Slatos was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with 180 days ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Slatos.

In TNP v. Ikea Rike, the defendant, who was ultimately convicted for Treason, had the intention of perpetrating a coup of the legitimate government but ultimately did little harm, similar to New Francois. However, unlike New Francois, the defendant entered the region with malicious intent, an aggravating factor on their behalf, though their expression of remorse was a mitigating factor that New Francois does not have. Ikea Rike was sentenced to 90 days ejection and ban from the region and 90 days removal of the right to citizenship after the banning period, with a one year ban on voting or seeking government office if they obtain citizenship afterwards. As New Francois was only convicted of Conspiracy, the sentence should be less than that imposed on Ikea Rike.

General comments
The Defense believes the extent of the crime committed was minor, as the planning to possibly perpetrate a coup was in fact in very early stages. Seeing as conspiracy is punished as a lesser punishment then the original crime, thus sparing my client from the highest punishment, a ban from the region. As well as seeing the mitigating factors in the case The Defense submits the following Final Recommendation for this case.

Final Recommendation
In consideration of the above, the Prosecution and Defense jointly recommends a sentence of 120 days’ ban from citizenship for the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Treason, in the case of The North Pacific v. New Francois.

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Slatos:

Spoiler

After careful consideration the Court under guidance of Chapter 2, Clauses 1 & 2 sees fit that the Defendant, Slatos, be sentenced with:

• Ejection and Banning for a period of 90 days, ending on 26 May, 2020;
• Removal of Citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days after the banning period, ending on 24 August, 2020;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office for a period of 180 days after gaining citizenship, or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner;
• Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 180 days after gaining citizenship, or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner.

The Court has considered the recommendations of the prosecution and the defence and has concluded that the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike has the greatest similarity to this case. They relate to the same crime and in neither case did harm result.

However, unlike in that case, the Court has seen no evidence that this Defendant joined The North Pacific with the malicious intent to commit the crime nor any suggesting any longer term commission of the crime. The Defendant does benefit from an early guilty plea but there is no comparable demonstration of remorse and the Court is not satisfied that the Defendant is remorseful.

Balancing those points, the Court considers that a comparable sentence to the Treason sentencing in The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike is appropriate.

The Delegate, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Slatos.

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Ikea Rike:

Spoiler

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 2, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 2, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Treason by:

1. Ejection and ban from the region for a period of 90 days, with credit received for days already banned, ending 18 April 2020;
2. Removal of citizenship;
3. Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days from the date of sentencing, ending 13 May 2020; and,
4. Removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2022 there will be no suspension of this right.

.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 6, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 3, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Espionage by:

1. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there will be no suspension of this right.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 25, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 10, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Gross Misconduct by:

1. Removal from any office the Defendant may hold; and,
2. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and lasting for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would be subject to suspension of voting rights under the sentence for Espionage, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting until 29 August 2021, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right

The Defendant has committed a number of crimes: Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct. They did so as part of their role in an operation organised by the head of a foreign government which is widely and rightly reviled. They acted as an agent of that foreign government and sought to infiltrate The North Pacific with a view to assisting in the overthrow of the regional government, in so doing they provided reports on the activities of the region, all contrary to their sworn oath. Their actions required them to mislead their fellow citizens and to betray the goodwill extended to them.

It is fortunate, however, that their operation appears to have had minimal impact, their governmental involvement being limited to the Regional Assembly and positions in the executive staff as opposed to the attainment of government office, and to have lead to the disclosure of little, if any, significant information from the region. It is apparent from the evidence supporting the indictment that the Defendant quickly became more preoccupied with the region's roleplay than with their original mission. Had there been a greater impact, this would be a far more serious matter.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties and has considered both the case of The North Pacific v Madjack, to which it was referred, and The North Pacific v Ravania, to which it was not. The Court does not consider that Madjack is of assistance to the Court in this matter: the Defendant in that case was not sentenced for any of the crimes being considered here and the different underlying facts render the sentence for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct of little use. Ravania is more helpful, as it is a sentence for Espionage, but it is limited, due to the different purposes of the Espionage and to the fact that actual harm did result from the actions of the Defendant in Ravania.

The Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the length its sentence is around that proposed by the Defendant, though the Court does not consider that it would be right for the whole of the period to be punished by a ban. The Court is wholly unpersuaded that the justice of the case requires an indefinite ban as suggested by the prosecution, such a ban would be manifestly excessive when set against the actual impact of the Defendant's crime.

However, the Court must go on to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. A significant aggravating factor is the sheer length of time for which the Defendant was committing the crimes, this is of particular concern when considering the risk the Defendant could pose if allowed opportunity to attain office. In mitigation are a number of factors. As the Court has noted, the harm done by the crime appears minimal. The Defendant has no prior convictions and was new to the region, but that must be set against the fact that the Defendant's presence in the region arose only to commit these crimes. Of substantially greater credit to the Defendant is their entry of a prompt and complete guilty plea to each crime and recognition that their actions require punishment. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse and has renounced their previous association with the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators, these facts also do much to aid the Defendant.

Taking those factors together, the Court considers that the appropriate measure to take is not to substantially reduce the length of the punishment, but is to reduce its severity, such that the bulk of the period of punishment will not be served by a ban. However, the law requires the Court to pass a punishment including ejection and banning and the Court considers that it will, in all but the most unusual of circumstances, require a ban of a non-trivial length to meet the gravity inherent to the crime of Treason. In this case, the Court considers that the period of the ban should be 90 days. The Court considers it just and appropriate to also order the removal of the Defendant's citizenship and to remove their ability to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days.

As is stated above, the Court also considers that there must be recognition of the fact that the Defendant has shown a willingness to act to overthrow the region and to do so for a considerable period of time, such that steps must be taken to prevent undue risk to regional government. The Court considers, therefore, that should further be imposed removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant gains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 August 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 August 2022 there shall be no removal of the right.

The law also requires the Court to impose separate punishments in respect of Espionage and Gross Misconduct. Espionage must be punished by suspension of voting rights or speech, or both. Gross Misconduct must be punished by suspension of voting rights. Without rehearsing all of the factors discussed above, the Court considers that the appropriate punishment in respect of each of the crimes of Espionage and Gross Misconduct is a voting suspension of 90 days. The punishment for Espionage shall commence when the Defendant gains citizenship and shall last for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. The punishment for Gross Misconduct shall commence when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and shall last for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would be subject to suspension of voting rights under the sentence for Espionage, shall commence when they gain citizenship and last until 29 August 2021, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. Gross Misconduct must also be punishment by removal from office; while it appears to the Court that the Defendant holds no office, the Court does nonetheless, in order to ensure completeness, order the Defendant's removal from any office they may hold.

In relation to the punishment of Treason by banning, the Court considers that it must recognise that the Defendant has already spent a considerable period of time banned, with the approval of the Chief Justice, pending the conclusion of this trial. While that ban was not punitive in its purpose, its link to these proceedings is clear and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of fairness and proportionality in punishment, credit should generally be given for periods served banned pending trial. Consequently, credit is given for the time the Defendant has spent already banned, such that this part of the sentence will expire on 18 April 2020.

Overall, this will mean a sentence as follows:

• Ejection and Ban from the region for a period of 90 days, credit received for days banned, ending 18 April 2020;
• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold;
• Removal of citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days, ending 13 May 2020;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office, for a one year period after attaining citizenship or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner
• Suspension of the right to vote, a 180 day period after attaining citizenship or until 29 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner

The Delegate, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Ikea Rike.

The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clauses 2 and 24, and Chapter 2, clauses 1, 2 and 8, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, New Francois, be punished for Conspiracy to commit Treason by:

1. Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 120 days, ending [date].

The Defendant has pleaded Guilty to Conspiracy to commit Treason. They planned to undermine or overthrow the region's lawful government. They intended to seek election as Delegate and then use the powers afforded to them by that office to do so. This plan was discussed on the Regional Message Board of another region, in those discussions the Defendant indicated a desire to raid The North Pacific and to provoke interregional conflict.

The Defendant's plan, it appears, was at a very early stage. While there was plainly discussion with other nations, there does not appear to be evidence to suggest other active participants in the plan. No harm has resulted from the Defendant's plan and, given its open discussion on a Regional Message Board, it seems unlikely the Defendant would have been capable of enacting the plan effectively.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties, including their references to the cases of The North Pacific v Slatos and The North Pacific v Ikea Rike. The Court agrees with the parties that those cases are of assistance and that the parties are right that the Court's duty to pass a strictly lesser sentence for Conspiracy than for an original crime does require a lesser sentence than either of those cases. Further, the harm and possibility of harm in this case were both lower and this Defendant's culpability seems far lesser than that of the Defendant in Ikea Rike, who had similarly been involved in a plot to overthrow the region, but had been involved in a more substantial plot for far longer.

The Court agrees that a case of Conspiracy to commit Treason, unlike that of Treason, does not require punishment by ejection and ban and that such a punishment in this case would not be appropriate. A sentence removing the Defendant's right to citizenship would be appropriate. Without considering the mitigating factors, a longer sentence than that proposed by the parties would be required. However, having regard to the Defendant's lack of prior criminal conviction and, particularly, their prompt guilty plea, the Court does consider that the length sought is adequate to do justice.

The factors identified as potentially being aggravating do not require any further adjustment. The question of the Defendant's current bar from citizenship is a security and political matter for the Vice Delegate and the Regional Assembly to which this Court cannot have regard. Lack of remorse, it appears to the Court, is more the absence of a mitigating factor than it is aggravation.

The Court considered whether a further element of punishment may be required, such as restricting the Defendant's right to stand and hold for office after gaining citizenship. While such an element could be an appropriate part of the sentence in this case, particularly having regard to the nature of the Defendant's plan, the Court does not think it is required. There is no need to disturb the bargain that the parties have reached, which, though arguably lenient, is not unduly so.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will be informed of this verdict and instructed to carry it out.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v New Francois.

 

[Vivanco]

I agree with the final version